ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2021
Relevance of BRAF Subcellular Localization and Its Interaction with
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- SLAMF8 expression and prognostic significance in melanoma: A multi-omics and Mendelian randomization study.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of the Effect of the BRAF Inhibitor Dabrafenib in 2D and 3D Cell Culture Models of Human Metastatic Melanoma Cells.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although skin melanoma (SKM) represents only one-quarter of newly diagnosed skin malignant tumors, it presents a high mortality rate. Hence, new prognostic and therapeutic tools need to be developed. This study focused on investigating the prognostic value of the subcellular expression of BRAF, KRAS, and KIT in SKM in correlation with their gene-encoding interactions. In silico analysis of the abovementioned gene interactions, along with their mRNA expression, was conducted, and the results were validated at the protein level using immunohistochemical (IHC) stains. For IHC expression, the encoded protein expressions were checked on 96 consecutive SKMs and 30 nevi. The UALCAN database showed no prognostic value for the mRNA expression level of KRAS and BRAF and demonstrated a longer survival for patients with low mRNA expression of KIT in SKMs. IHC examinations of SKMs confirmed the UALCAN data and showed that KIT expression was inversely correlated with ulceration, Breslow index, mitotic rate, and pT stage. KRAS expression was also found to be inversely correlated with ulceration and perineural invasion. When the subcellular expression of BRAF protein was recorded (nuclear vs. cytoplasmatic vs. mixed nucleus + cytoplasm), a direct correlation was emphasized between nuclear positivity and lymphovascular or perineural invasion. The independent prognostic value was demonstrated for mixed expression of the BRAF protein in SKM. BRAF cytoplasmic predominance, in association with KIT's IHC positivity, was more frequently observed in early-stage nonulcerated SKMs, which displayed a low mitotic rate and a late death event. The present study firstly verified the possible prognostic value of BRAF subcellular localization in SKMs. A low mRNA expression or IHC cytoplasmic positivity for KIT and BRAF might be used as a positive prognostic parameter of SKM. SKM's BRAF nuclear positivity needs to be evaluated in further studies as a possible indicator of perineural and lymphovascular invasion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.